D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[Voadam]

[
Has WOTC clarified whether these abilities can be counterspelled?

I thought they were nerfing counterspell a bit with these abilities.

IMC I am allowing the spell-like abilities to be countered, but I would be interested in the RAW or even RAI.

Thanks.

They clarified that they cannot be counterspelled, because they are not "Spells."

Doesn't break anything if you allow it, really, but Mosnters will be weaker.

Where is this clarification?

I don't see it in Monsters of the Multiverse. Page 37 talks about use the stat block rules from the MM. This would indicate to me that the only change is going from prepared spells and slots to specified spells at will or x/day.

A natural language reading is that spells are spells whether cast by a monster or a PC.

I can understand monster magical powers that mimic spell effects but are labelled as magic or powers and not as spells not triggering spell interaction effects, but saying NPC and monster powers explicitly called "spells" do not count as "spells" would be weird and should need a big clear rulebook statement that the natural language does not apply as it normally does in 5e.

Not being able to counterspell in a spell duel with an NPC mage would be weird.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny really.

For years, the constant refrain is that high level D&D gets no support and it's too hard to run the game at high levels. That prep and running a high level D&D game is a huge slog and so, virtually no one ever does it. So, round and round we go, there's virtually no support for high level play.

Add to that the free admittance in this thread (as well as many others) that experienced DM's, with years or even decades of experience, cannot run high level casters without making mistakes. Sorry, but, if you can't use a system, despite having years of experience using that system, then that system needs to change.

No one even batted an eye when someone upthread said that they constantly make mistakes when running high level casters. I totally agree. Trying to run a high level caster is ridiculously complicated on its own. Never minding if you have a group of baddies, plus maybe a couple of summoned creatures, and whatnot. I mean, good grief, in my Candlekeep game, there's a potential fight with an archmage, an air elemental, a water elemental and a magical siege cannon. That fight would be ridiculously complicated to run and I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if 20 experienced DM's were to run it, probably 19 out of the 20 would get something wrong during the fight.

So, what do you do about it? Do you just throw up your hands and say, "Well, it's okay that these rules are far too complicated, everyone just screws them up anyway, so, who cares?" or do you actually fix the system that no one can actually, accurately use in play?

This is just the 1-2-1 argument all over again. Oh noes, we MUST keep 1-2-1 counting. It's so vitally important!!! You will ruin the game without it!!! 5e comes along and jettisons 1-2-1 counting and everyone claps about how much easier 5e is to run in combat.

 

[Charlaquin]

Where is this clarification?

I don't see it in Monsters of the Multiverse. Page 37 talks about use the stat block rules from the MM. This would indicate to me that the only change is going from prepared spells and slots to specified spells at will or x/day.

A natural language reading is that spells are spells whether cast by a monster or a PC.

I can understand monster magical powers that mimic spell effects but are labelled as magic or powers and not as spells not triggering spell interaction effects, but saying NPC and monster powers explicitly called "spells" do not count as "spells" would be weird and should need a big clear rulebook statement that the natural language does not apply as it normally does in 5e.

Not being able to counterspell in a spell duel with an NPC mage would be weird.

Monster spells can still be countered, dispelled, etc. Monster abilities that are not spells, such as Vecna’s Flight of the Damned or his Rotten Fate cannot be counterspelled, dispelled, etc. on account of them not being spells. This does, in a roundabout way, make anti-spell abilities like counterspell weaker, since most spellcasting NPCs and monsters now rely more on such not-quite-spell abilities than on actual spells, especially when it comes to damage output. Vecna’s spells, for example, probably don’t even factor into his CR calculation because he has higher average damage per round if he just spams Rotten Fate and Afterthought than if he mixes in some Lightning Bolts. As I understand, this is typical of MMotM monster design. The abilities that factor into CR are mostly not spells any more, which means Counterspell will rarely, if ever, be significantly impactful against monsters or NPCs.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is just the 1-2-1 argument all over again. Oh noes, we MUST keep 1-2-1 counting. It's so vitally important!!! You will ruin the game without it!!! 5e comes along and jettisons 1-2-1 counting and everyone claps about how much easier 5e is to run in combat.

1-2-1 is easy. Just always move one square diagonally when leaving the square you started your turn in, and move orthogonally at all other times. You get a functional half-square (2.5-ft) boost to your speed, and only ever have to count 1-1-1.

 

[Thomas Rainsborough]

It’s a metagame shift. This happens all the time in games where new elements are regularly introduced, such as TCGs and MOBAs. What’s good one season may no longer be good when something else comes out that counters it. Not because it was nerfed, but because the competitive environment evolved.

I have played Eve Online for a long time. It is the most cut throat game out there, and the home for sociopaths. CCP changes the metagame at least once per year, usually in response to an alliance like The Goons finding the perfect ship fits with that current set of module/ ship fits.
But no one can compare D&D to Eve Online, or any other competitive game. Not unless you plan having players drop chars they have built up over a year or so for the new hotness.

 

[Minigiant]

Sorry, but, if you can't use a system, despite having years of experience using that system, then that system needs to change.

"But I like it the way it looks."

One of the things that a large percentage of the vocal D&D community embraces is likely something to function on way because thy like the look or flavor, knowing it doesn't work, and not wanting to change the thing they know doesn't work.

I mean it there were 2 Caster level charts, one for 6-8 encounter adventure-casters and one for 1 shot nova-casters, Sure. A lich could be stated up as a 18th level nova-caster.

But there is only one chart. And when people like me asked for official variants, a lot of folks said "No!".

 

[Charlaquin]

I have played Eve Online for a long time. It is the most cut throat game out there, and the home for sociopaths. CCP changes the metagame at least once per year, usually in response to an alliance like The Goons finding the perfect ship fits with that current set of module/ ship fits.
But no one can compare D&D to Eve Online, or any other competitive game. Not unless you plan having players drop chars they have built up over a year or so for the new hotness.

This is a metagame shift though. Counterspell wasn’t nerfed, it’s just worse in the post-MMotM metagame because fewer monsters need to use spells to be effective in combat now.

 

[Parmandur]

This is a metagame shift though. Counterspell wasn’t nerfed, it’s just worse in the post-MMotM metagame because fewer monsters need to use spells to be effective in combat now.

Somewhat more situational. Worse, I don't know about that.

 

[Parmandur]

Where is this clarification?

I don't see it in Monsters of the Multiverse. Page 37 talks about use the stat block rules from the MM. This would indicate to me that the only change is going from prepared spells and slots to specified spells at will or x/day.

A natural language reading is that spells are spells whether cast by a monster or a PC.

I can understand monster magical powers that mimic spell effects but are labelled as magic or powers and not as spells not triggering spell interaction effects, but saying NPC and monster powers explicitly called "spells" do not count as "spells" would be weird and should need a big clear rulebook statement that the natural language does not apply as it normally does in 5e.

Not being able to counterspell in a spell duel with an NPC mage would be weird.

I know that Crawford clarified on Twitter somewhere, though I believe that he goes into it a bit here:

 

[Greg Benage]

Add to that the free admittance in this thread (as well as many others) that experienced DM's, with years or even decades of experience, cannot run high level casters without making mistakes. Sorry, but, if you can't use a system, despite having years of experience using that system, then that system needs to change.

That was me, and this is really interesting, because I completely disagree with you. I don't think the very real fact that I sometimes make errors means I "can't use the system" or that it needs to change. I think the fact that I sometimes make errors indicates that it can be challenging. I make errors when playing chess, too, and that game is perfect. I don't think it should be dumbed down to the point that I can play it without error.

Having said that, repeating myself again, I do like a lot of what they're doing here. And they can keep the streamlined design while also providing some guidance on playing Vecna as a D&D spellcaster. If I make an occasional mistake, that's fine -- my players do, too, because D&D is strategically and tactically challenging and engaging (at its best). I really don't think we want to replace that, whole cloth, with a series of dice roll exchanges to see whose hit points reach zero first.